LAWS(DLH)-1995-1-49

JUGLAL MEHTO Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Decided On January 01, 1995
JUGLAL MEHTO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Juglal Mehto has been convicted of an offenceof murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode having caused the death of Rajinder Nath Malhotra and also has beenconvicted of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code of having caused injuries to Smt.Mahindra Rani Malhotra withintent to cause her death, vide judgment dated 28/02/1989, of an AdditionalSessions Judge and by the order of the even date, he has been sentenced to undergolife imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000.00 and in default to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months more for the first offence of murder and undergorigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in defaultto undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence of attempt tomurder. He has filed this appeal challenging his convictions and sentences.

(2.) . The co-accused, who was tried alongwith the appellant, namely. RamParikrama has been acquitted. The third co-accused, namely, Musafir Ram wasdeclared as proclaimed offender and evidence against him has been recordedunder Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) . Smt. Mahindra Rani Malhotra, PW16, alongwith her husband RajinderNath Malhotra were living at the relevant time in house No. 23A, DDA Flats,Munirka, New Delhi. Her husband had been working in the Reserve Bank of Indiaand had retired from the service about two years before the present occurrence andRam Parikrama was working as a Peon in the Reserve Bank of India with him andwas visiting their place off and on as her husband used to render some financialassistance to Ram Parikrama, the nature of the financial dealings between RamParikrama and the deceased Rajinder Nath Malhotra has not been brought outclearly in investigation. Most probably Smt.Mahindra Rani Malhotra, being ahouse wife, had perhaps not been apprised of the details of financial dealings beingindulged in between her husband and Ram Parikrama.